Musings….. Author Anthony P. Griffin

Humor

Some of life’s lessons never leave us, even if buried, unseen for years, presumably gone the way of lost memories. The lessons remain engraved, assuming a dominant position at unforeseen times, buried in some undefined place in our psyches. Forgotten but not forgotten is a contradictory way of explaining that which is not contradictory, and not complex. My mother’s mother use repetitiveness and firm commands to make her point, “respect your elders.” It was never “yes”, unless followed by “ma’am”. “No, sir”, even for the mean white men down at the Cotton Gin, when I dare asked. Correcting, reminding, reaching over, grabbing – a hand-full of shirt – converting me into the boy puppet. “Yes, ma’am,” head moving up and down, arms now engaged in the submissive mode; eyes, mouth, body movements – everything – controlled by the puppet-master. If the hand inserted in the back didn’t work, a firm tap on the back of the head seemed to work just fine; reminding, re-engaging the circuitry, somewhat akin to striking the television set of my youth on the side, the top, in the back, in order to get a clearer picture; in the case of Chester Anna, to elicit a proper response.

“Yes sir.”

I have never fooled myself to believe the training was not successful. Mind’s eye said she possessed the ability to sneak anywhere, day or night, and she did so when placing a stamp of approval, visible only to her, in a location I could not see, certifying I was sufficiently compliant and properly trained in the etiquette of the society. She retained these powers even after her death. No need for you to give me any mystical explanation of what I believe. I don’t care. It is what I believe. I don’t need an explanation.

“No, ma’am, I am not hungry. I don’t want anything to eat. Thank you anyway,” words said even when starving, sitting in place, not moving, while aromas moved from kitchen to the living area, invading every ounce of a child’s deprived body, wanting to say yes, wanting to admit hunger, knowing full well the consequences if you did.. A “no, ma’am” feebly emitted; forever hearing Chester Anna’s admonishments, seeing her hand near – none of those vivid rainbow sightings, no beautiful flowers, no smiling faces – no, no, no, her presence was always accompanied by a stare, more intense than the sun’s glow, never profane, forever pious. However ready to erupt, much like Mount Agung, on a moment notice, willing to test the circuitry at any moment. Tap! Tap!

“You eat at home!”

These were lessons ingrained. Never assume they have been lost over time. Not my history. Forever receiving reminders, similar to flood water, invading no matter what mystical powers you believe will protect you from Mother Nature. Somewhat akin to being reminded intelligence is never artificial, no matter what they tell us – whatever that means – but I digress.

The most recent reminder was this Thanksgiving. Appearing not in disguise; easily recognizable; so apparent I thought this is a trick question. Surely Chester Anna was lurking, waiting for me to respond improperly, ready to move across the room – tapping, tapping, tapping a cane pole against the floor. I was not going to be fooled. I will never be fooled. Never, ever again; I know my role.

After saying “no” twice to attending a family dinner to two different and equally important family members, I received a call from an elder, my 96 year old mother-in-law. “You are coming to the family dinner? Even though I have placed a question mark after the words, there was no question mark buried in the intent. There lies the trick. She knew the answer to the question and wanted me to repeat the answer to make sure I understood. She didn’t wait for an answer to the first statement. She followed immediately with, “If you don’t attend, I will never speak to you as long as I am alive.” The last statement/test/trick was followed by a chuckle. A Lena chuckle, forever laughing at her own jokes, affirming to me she had spoken to Chester Anna. I looked around to see if Chester Anna was in the room. I saw skeleton images, like the ones seen the Day of Dead celebrations in Mexico. I didn’t think for a moment to wait for them to reveal theirs were costumes. I answered immediately. Knowing you always answer immediately. Loud enough, so she could hear, so Chester Anna could hear. Loud enough to receive my collar back, to be permitted to move off my toes, to the floor again. “Yes, ma’am I will be there.” No mumbling allowed. Clear diction, said in a manner which said I meant every word. Said with a correct posture, so there would be no doubt, just in case either of them was staring at meet through the phone lines, from some unseen place to cast retribution.

No more deviance. No more saying what I will not do. Immediate compliance in order that the images would move away, “what time do you want me there?”, was the question. Laugh if you want. I was a ten year compliant little boy, retreating backward in time, paying respects to an elder, knowing my place. The same respect I paid to “even those mean white men down at the Cotton Gin.”

“One o’clock.”

“Yes ma’am, see you there.”

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

Mickey Mouse and his charge were angered by The Los Angeles Times reporting on Disney’s relationship with the City of Anaheim. The Times’ story posed questions about Mickey’s influence on the City, to the detriment of other taxpayers. After the Times refused to retreat, Mickey, Daffy, Goofy, and Elsa (a new generation star), persuaded the Board of Disney to invoke a Timesonlyban on the Times preview of Disney’s new releases. For those unfamiliar, the press is allowed the opportunity to see new releases prior to the movies’ distribution to the public. The Times responded in kind, issuing a press release telling the public about Mickey’s edict.

NOV. 3, 2017, 6:00 A.M.

A note to readers

The annual Holiday Movie Sneaks section published by the Los Angeles Times typically includes features on movies from all major studios, reflecting the diversity of films Hollywood offers during the holidays, one of the busiest box-office periods of the year. This year, Walt Disney Co. studios declined to offer The Times advance screenings, citing what it called unfair coverage of its business ties with Anaheim. The Times will continue to review and cover Disney movies and programs when they are available to the public.

Donald was the only one who sided with the Times. Standing alone, on the right side of the Board room, one webbed foot planted on the floor, the other on the wall; leaning back, quacking, protesting much too loudly, speaking imperceptibly against the Board’s anticipated decision. A good transcriptionist would have had difficulty deciphering Donald’s mutterings; spitting out choice words, some profane, in the heart of Walt’s world. “The Board’s rule strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. The right of a free and an unfettered press,” Donald’s words, translated to plain-speak. Mickey and the others were nonplussed. Mickey turned to his right, cuffed both hands, telling Snow White – and the other seven – to stop giggling. A non-jolly Mickey, a different face than his public face; frowning instead of smiling, speaking in a lower octave – a bass not a tenor – explaining, “He knows not what he is doing,” seemingly revealing the voice the public has heard all these years was made-up, a false, comical, insulting, falsetto.

“We are not preventing them from reporting. There is nothing requiring us to allow the Times to review of our movies, Mr. Duck. Mr. Disney would be terribly disappointed in your position. I have to tell you I am. The Board is apparently in agreement, Mr. Duck. The will of the majority, not the tyranny of the majority – as I heard you say,” said the Board’s chair.

Donald stood firm, hissing, spouting, spitting his words out – not Cajun, not Bawstan, nothing like the most severe southern accent – words spilling out in an unpredictable cadence, with quacks interspersed unexpectedly, further muddling his opposition. Donald’s anger compounded the problem, distorting his diction, making the opposition doubly unreasonable.

Donald believed in free speech, even for Elmer Fudd. Fudd didn’t look like him. Fudd believed differently than he. Fudd wasn’t part of the Disney family. Donald didn’t know what Fudd was; he even sounded funny to Donald, a stuttering, cartoonish buffoon was Donald’s unkind opinion of Mr. Fudd. The interesting part of their relationship – Donald understood what Fudd was saying when he talked. His difficulty lay in Elmer’s tendency to repeat himself. He also detested Fudd calling him down for cursing. None of these differences with Fudd mattered at this time. Donald was a pure civil libertarian. He believed in the right of free speech even for Fudds; meaning others, friends and foes alike.

Donald was wrong however on his First Amendment point to the Board. The Board’s lawyer delightfully corrected him. “We are not the government Mr. Duck, and the last time I checked no one has amended the First Amendment to add anyone other than Congress. ‘Congress and Disney … shall make no laws,’ no, no, no, not how it works. I have never seen Disney’s name referenced in the Constitution.”

Oh, ‘the not how it works”, got everyone going; hissing, cackling, laughing, clapping, stomping, a rather cartoonish, clownish, clannish bunch they were – Mickey, Minnie, Pluto, Goofy, Belle, Princess Jasmine, Maleficent and even Elsa turned in unison, shouting Donald down, pointing to the floor. The scene took on the ambiance of a sporting event, done in a style that only Disney could produce. Thumb emojis floated across the screen located on the back wall behind the Board, pointing downward. Disney being Disney, the animations were life-like; they moved off the screen, floated through the air, pointing downward, frowning while they travelled in the unison. Riotous, cavorting, snickering behavior was the mood of those watching this mean version of the Wonderful World of Disney, converting and changing the words of the theme song, “When you wish upon a star, makesadifference who you are.” Daisy, Donald’s girlfriend, turned, batted her eyes and spit. Instead of sputum flying the fifteen feet separating them, animated block letters flew out and upward, then corrected themselves, lining up in an orderly manner, and instead of a Disney-like chorus line, they spelled out the word, L-O-S-E-R.

The Board ignored Donald’s plea, leaving Donald isolated. They voted their intent, exited stage right, and were heard mumbling over a live microphone, “He always quacks.” The comment angered Donald. He found the comment derogatory, off-putting, hateful; bordering on being … “duck-ist.”

The Board knew the law. Disney has and always has had good lawyers. The same lawyers who refused to give an interview to The Los Angeles Times when the story broke. The law firm is located in Sleepy Hollow. Absolutely, the lawyers had advised Disney correctly: “Disney can’t control the Times’ reporting (“the right of a free press is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution”) … “we don’t owe them the right to review our movies early.”

So it was, the Board accepted their lawyer’s advice; we don’t have to talk to you defense. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Iger approved the motion, followed by a second, told Mr. Duck he was out of order, followed by the previously predicted unanimous vote; putting in place a Los Angeles Times only policy. Thus the Mickey induced policy allowed Disney to raise the ladders, secret behind the moat, permitting Iger and his minions to secret away to their magical castles to cherish the applause of the admiring minions.

Joy, joy, joy filled the air, Donald grew silent, dejected and moved toward the exit, while others in Disney’s universe celebrated, anticipating a joyous holiday season and wonderful reviews of Disney’s movies with the banishment of the tattletales. Donald’s sadness permitted the door to hit him where it shouldn’t – dead center – rousing him from his stupor, causing the emission of a severe, shrill, startling quack, propelling Donald upward and outward into the arms of the Times’ reporter. She was there covering the meeting, and exited before Donald to interview him for a follow-up story.

Donald was particularly fond of the Times’ reporter. No, no, don’t jump to conclusions. Donald’s not like that; never has been; never will be; Donald is Donald, a different Hollywood star. A different relationship was theirs. He was the reporter’s source in a number of different areas: labor issues, mergers and acquisitions, even admitting he had a favorite Mouseketeer. This last admission appeared in a fluff piece published in January 2015. The reporter was forever mining sources, listening, reporting, loving the breadth and size Disney represented. A fan, a critic and now standing in the hallway, holding Donald, catching him with a basket catch, the same catch she had deployed in the Lassie League in San Bernardino when she was a child.

҉ ҉ ҉

The Disney universe is vast. Disney’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing of subsidiaries reflects ownership of different entities worldwide, including the familiar Walt Disney Studios, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Pixar, Marvel Studios, ABC broadcast television network, cable television networks such as Disney Channels, ESPN, A & E Networks and Lucas Films. Other studios which are part of this conglomerate: Touchstone Pictures, Maker Studios, and ABC Studios. Disney also owns multiple musical publishing companies, resorts, and theatrical groups. Disney’s holdings are worldwide; delivering a gross income in 2016 of 22.91 billion. A conglomerate engaged in the business of speech through various means; movies, books, publications, entertainment, and advertisements. Cornell Law School’s website explains, “Commercial speech has been defined by the Supreme Court as speech where the speaker is more likely to be engaged in commerce, where the intended audience is commercial or actual or potential consumers, and where the content of the message is commercial in character.”

Notwithstanding, what one may think of Disney’s size, the Board’s lawyer was right with regards to her assessment of the law and the proper way of protecting her client. Moving a recognizable flock of white hair with one hand, back over her head; mingling the hair with hair a different color. A raven now appeared, hovering overhead. The lawyer emitted a laugh heard before, a familiar laugh. Her name was Cruella de Vil. Before going to law school de Vil was part of the studio’s permanent cast. A classical, mean, beauty was she. Meaning of the last statement? – One of those people who possessed a non-welcoming smile, a smile which was not a smile, an illusion. Lawyer de Vil could honestly brag that she didn’t look her age. Nary an errant line; possessing the same youthful mane when introduced to the public in 1961 (101 Dalmatians); same laugh, she was the original Frozen, frozen in place, over time, preserved. Disney’s creators served her well. Now a different profession, stacking papers, with an eerie smile affixed, talking to an associate: “Mr. Duck’s reaction when he flew off the wall was classic. When the emoji struck him on the side the head, it was better than any other animation I have ever seen. Flying, stumbling out of the room, getting struck dead smack under his tail. Bravo! Dead center, I say, dead center!”

҉ ҉ ҉

In 1938 Mickey, Donald and Goofy starred in a film-short in which Goofy damn near got Donald killed. Donald, for some reason, blamed Mickey. There was a considerable period of time in which they did not speak. Gossip has it Donald held the grudge for ten years and didn’t appear (voluntarily) in another film-short, until 1954. May be true, may be not true. The truth of their past didn’t matter when Donald exited, webbed feet first. Donald understood fundamental rights were not about friendship.

The cash pours in too: Each vehicle pays $20 to park at the Mickey & Friends facility, $35 for a preferred space close to the escalators and elevators.

Even if the parking garage fills just half its spaces, it would still generate more than $35 million in annual revenue and easily hundreds of millions of dollars over the life of the structure.

That money all goes to Walt Disney Co. The city of Anaheim, which owns the garage and spent $108.2 million to build it, charges the company just $1 a year for the lease.

The Times’ article concluded, and rightly so, that Disney is the master of obtaining subsidies for its ventures, securing “$866 million in incentives it secured for film production, real estate development and other projects from 2000 to 2016”, far outpacing “incentives won by its rival media conglomerates, according to IncentivesMonitor, a services of data firm Wavteq Ltd. Disney’s haul was more than double what Time Warner Inc., Comcast Corp, Viacom Inc. and 21st Centruy Fox Inc. each got over the same period.” The Times’ reporting did what a free press does, the article begged the questions which needed answering, allow fresh air to enter, invited sunlight to shine on a conglomerate, even one as beloved as Disney, to ascertain whether the Government was wisely using public funds. Too much fresh air entered, The Times got itself banned the from the preview of Disney’s new releases, and the instatement of The Los Times’ only rule. A rule instated to punish the press for telling on them; telling the public what Mickey and his friends were doing to the rest of us.

Donald understood free speech meant protecting the odious message too, even if the message was hostile to his interest. Never aging, appearing in film-short after film-short, known world-wide, knowing his position may well lead to his demise – erased from tablets, deleted from computers, digitally altered, morphing into something else other than Donald Duck were the dangers he faced. Donald had treaded this path before, once helping organize Park employees, who wanted to publicly tell which characters the employees played. Fortune Magazine in June 2015 reported the dispute. This union is attacking Disney’s weirdest policy, read Fortune’s caption. The union – the Teamsters – represented the Park employees.

And what was Mr. Mouse’s position in this dispute? Suck-up Mickey could not have cared less; always the favorite son; forever supportive of management, squeaking submissively. Mickey could well have invented the quiet-ass-mouse adage (no mistake here on the adage, he was a quiet-ass mice, a suck-up). Donald has always differed, forever irascible, confrontational, however never to the extent of silencing his and others rights. Donald tendered information to the Teamsters, working toward resolving the dispute. He stuck his beak out then. He was sticking his beak out now.

On November 7, 2017, the New York Times reported thusly, Disney Ends Ban on Los Angeles Times Amid Fierce Backlash. The Times reported that the change in course occurred when a number of news outlets, including the New York Times and A.V. Club said they were boycotting Disney’s advance screenings, in solidarity, until the Los Angeles’ Times only rule was lifted. Their position was consistent with the unknown adage – because I’m making up an adage to apply to this story – Free Speech for Thee Too!

And since this musing is moving through the different levels of sanity, a few other points: The New York Times’ story wasn’t totally accurate. They failed to report on the meeting called by Mr. Duck; putting everything on the line, calling others to task, persuading they vote against their economic interest in order to support free speech for themselves, friends, and competitors. His was not a clear speech; his diction is never clear. Spitting, sputtering, cursing – in a rage, he was – he was the not nice Donald.

Maybe the reporter for The New York Times didn’t understand what he was saying; had never seen any of his shorts; had never used him as a source. The Los Angeles Times reporter sat in the corner laughing at their contempt, listening to the New York reporters mumble out loud, “A talking duck; a talking duck!” She remained in place listening, chuckling to herself, Give me a break, I have seen worse on the streets of New York … give me a frickin’ break buddy! Donald was her favorite. Didn’t I say that?

Those New Yorkers actually did a “fairly” (with contemptible air-quotes around “fairly”) good job in their reporting, biases notwithstanding. Their story accurately reported the support of “several high-profile Hollywood figures, including Ava DuVernay, who directed A Wrinkle in Time, which is to be released by Disney on March 9. Saluting the film journalists standing up for one another, Ms. DuVernay wrote on Twitter on Monday: ‘Standing with you.’”

What did those contemptuous reporters leave out? They never mentioned the flying and attacking emojis. They omitted references to the sputum which floated through the air like sputum initially before magically converting to block letters; letters which came out of nicey-nice Daisy’s mouth. There was no mentioned of Cruella de Vil’s retirement and her now being a lawyer. Disney never told us any of this, still playing the same films over and over again. No mentioned of de Vil’s presentation (arrogant, rude, devious, cutting, and unbecoming of the profession). Sure she looked marvelous (hair, skin tone, voice was the same, never aging not one day). It seems to me – since I have plum fallen off the wagon with this musing – that none of her physical attributes should have mattered. The reporting should have reported her role; she started the charge of the tyranny of the majority. Those reporters probably didn’t trust the public knowledge of the term, tyranny of the majority and the persistent historical comfort in silencing the minority view.

The sad unwarranted and belligerent conduct of Mr. Disney’s favorites was not placed in the historical record; laughing, snorting, carrying on worse than Donald did in a 1952 film-short entitled Donald Duck – Trick or Treat. Conduct worse than cartoonish, unreal. Moreover, those foreigners entering a foreign land failed to mention Donald speaking at the meeting, calling a huddle of the reporters afterwards in the hallway, leading the formal meeting two days later, as he did for the Park employees in 2015, encouraging the press organizations and assorted celebrities to collectively boycott the Los Angeles Times only policy. Seemingly those New Yorkers didn’t believe and didn’t believe their readers would believe. Now you know the truth.

Perhaps, not believing, they too were being duck-ist. Something we thought we were long past in our society. We’re better than that. Unfortunately in these times – this time – they were not.

Share this:

Like this:

The invitation to give a speech at the Baytown Country Club was bittersweet in a number of ways. From third grade through high school my family lived in the shadows of the country club, a world apart, foreign to our everyday reality. The invitation came two years after an extended and bitter fight over prayer in school. The case, Santa Fe School District v. Doe, wound a tortured path through the United States District Court, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. My representation of the Doe(s) served as one of the impetus for then federal judge, Samuel B. Kent, personally expressing his intended life’s mission (“I will make the next forty years of your life miserable” (his actual quote was more profane and colorful – mean-spirited, bordering on bullying. Absent spelling out the profane words, the descriptive words used above, coupled with one’s imagination should suffice to provide a proper setting)).

I drove that day with the intent to make the luncheon speech on time. It was now clear to me His Honor had made good on his promise of my intended demise. He had dismissed 18 out of the 25 cases in which I had in his court. His Honor crafted three opinions a week, over a six week period, releasing each opinion with great fanfare. The opinions inferred the plaintiff’s lawyer (interpretation – me/moi/mì) was suffering from drug or alcohol problem(s). Each opinion contained faint praise – he at one time was an excellent lawyer, but that something was now amiss in his behavior and practice before the Court (please read this with a cultural twist on my part – “He be talking about me”).

His honor, in those 18 orders, directed I forward a copy of the orders to the affected clients. All of the orders contained an explicit recommendation for plaintiff file a grievance against their lawyer or sue the lawyer (again, me/moi/mi). Not surprisingly the clients took the Court’s advice, 18 grievances alleging their lawyer violated his obligations to them. In hindsight I don’t blame the clients. The cases were now dismissed. Their only remedy was an appeal. They didn’t know my history with His Honor. Not many people would resist an explicit order from a federal judge inferring their lawyer was a drunk, on drugs, or made a mess of their affairs. Part of me was internally insulted: never consuming alcohol in my life, refusing to allow any type of drugs/mind or body altering substance to enter my body. Avoiding advertisement, peer pressures, expected behavior. I saw too many of my classmates succumb and fall by the wayside because of the use/abuse/addiction to those substances; substances readily available, far more available than say a fresh apple in our neighborhood. I wonder why? I wonder why?

His Honor also visited his fellow federal judges and told of his life altering plans for me. He requested his fellow “his/her honors” become active participants his goal to rid the bar of my presence. His expressed invitation was extended in a meeting of his fellow judges for the Southern District of Texas. One of his fellow judges revealed this secret to me, even though the judges’ meetings are confidential. Her Honor wasn’t the only one who told, another Her Honor spouse revealed the remaining judges’ decision to reject Judge Kent’s invitation to participate in my demise. The judges directed me to file any new Galveston Division case in the Houston Division. The remaining judges directed me to file any new case in the Houston Division, assuring me those cases “would not” be transferred back to Judge Kent’s court. My complying with the other his/her honors’ request did not protect me from the pending grievances, nor shield me from the public relationship war being waged by Samuel B. Kent as he continued to issue opinion after opinion. The other judges also made clear they had no authority to remove any of the pending cases from Judge Kent’s court.

When Judge Kent issued his weekly opinions, he followed his orders with a phone call to the local print media (Houston Chronicle and Galveston County Daily News). The reporters would then in turn call me for my response to the latest edict. I gracefully demurred. My addressing the press in a state of anger simply didn’t seem to me a likely path for success or survival. Judge Kent’s initial attacks began in 1997. The Supreme Court heard the Doe case in 1999 and issued its opinion in 2000. I was now two years removed from the Supreme Court’s decision; time’s passage did not make my drive any less internally traumatic.

҉ ҉ ҉

The drive from Galveston to Baytown was bittersweet because all which preceded my invitation to speak gnawed at me in the same manner the chemical plants gnawed at Baytown’s harbors. My office had now been gutted. Fear of the unknown became the burden imposed on the young lawyers and staff members prior to their fleeing to safer, more reasonable and lucrative harbors. As they fled, the office became a poor facsimile of our previous self. His Honor’s much public attacks devastated our federal docket, obliterated the overall caseload and caused our income to plummet. Samuel B. Kent’s actions mirrored others’ acts which had played out during my existence in Galveston – different actors, a different time.

The trip to Baytown allowed His Honor’s unwanted attention and my childhood memories of a changing/challenging world of a desegregating south to play out. The landscape was familiar to me, somewhat akin to watching a well-worn movie, listening but not listening, watching but not watching. However, none of this is why I muse. I muse because history is a vicious reminder of our past, and a wonderful predictor of our future. I muse because as I happily now exit the legal stage somewhat similar to the boxing ring, my history tells me that my being excluded, mistakenly being invited or being expelled from the ring were constants of history’s lessons.

I was running a little bit ahead of schedule. My decision to travel to the speech immediately after my court appearance in Galveston allowed me to save some time. I left early also because of other obligations, a requirement I appear in federal court in Houston after the speech. My office had informed the Houston court of the conflict and the possibility of running ten to fifteen minutes late.

When the invitation was extended, I had not been told much about what my host wanted me to speak about. The only information given was their wanting to hear of my experiences in Santa Fe v. Doe, no other instructions. My childhood anxieties refused to remain in the car – they walked with me every step of the way – from car, to sidewalk, to door. The well-appointed room served as a backdrop for my history and anxieties. I was immediately met by a gentleman.

“I am glad you made it. I am glad to meet you personally and not just talk with you on the phone. We were worried whether your hearing in Galveston would go over. And then the rains came.”

“I finished early and made up some time. Thank you for the invitation.”

“I am so excited you are here.” It was at this time I was given a fuller picture of what the host wanted to hear. “We want to know whether you were disappointed in the Supreme Court’s ruling and if so what do you expect in the future? … Is there a chance of any additional test cases? … Prayer in schools is important to our members. … We request you speak for thirty minutes, leave a little time for questions.” …

The host left me little time to answer his questions. He left even less to take in this new information, saying, “Excuse me, I must check with my colleague on something else.” Walking away, leaving me to my own devices.

Why on earth would I be disappointed with a ruling which was in my clients’ favor? What test cases was my host referring – I didn’t have a clue. This smartly dressed business man moved across this once prohibited sanctum to visit with others of like ilk. I had not moved far from the front door when Wanda Cash, a former Assistant Managing Editor for the Galveston County Daily News, approached and asked whether I remembered her. I assured her I did. She now occupied the position of editor and publisher of The Baytown Sun. Wanda too expressed unbridled excitement with my appearance. A smile seemed permanently etched on her face. Wanda appeared to be enjoying herself a little too much.

When Wanda left my presence, I reached for a program on the front desk. I was now confused. I was described in the program as the lawyer representing the school district. “An unfortunate loss” the members were informed, but “optimism for new strategies, new cases all to assure prayer in school.” The Baytown Rotary Club invited the wrong person. I wasn’t the other lawyer. I had no earthly idea how those lawyers felt, and was pretty sure no one was going to inform me of any planned test cases in order to get the question of prayer in public schools back before the United States Supreme Court.

My predicament was not one of “guess who coming to dinner”. I was already at dinner. When I looked up from the program my smartly-dressed host was approaching again.

“We are going to do some general business first. There are some agenda items we need to address before I introduce you. I say five minutes.”

“Sir, I have something to tell you.”

“You need something from us?”

“No sir, I’m fine. The description of me on this program is not me. I think you invited the wrong person. I represented the children and parents who challenged prayer in the public schools, not the school district. We won.”

As Ali’s phantom punch of Sonny Liston, in their second fight, was too fast for the human eye to perceive so was the effect of my words on this stranger. Those words propelled his 165 pound frame across the floor. The tails of an immaculate grey suit flapped as he approached other similarly attired men. He may have attempted to mask his horror, he couldn’t. His hands served as tell-tales, flailing uncontrollably. His body appeared distended with gas. He attempted to whisper, but the other men did not.

“Oh shit!”

Oh shit is right. I’m hungry. I did not eat breakfast. I started my day at 5:00 a.m., prepared for two hearings, spent two hours in the first hearing and traveled here in a driving rain storm for the last hour. If I don’t find something to eat, I’m not going be able to get anything in my stomach until 4:00 p.m. The first time my Negro butt gets to go the Baytown Country Club and I am going to get kicked out! I have seen this dance before –‘no you can’t come in, no don’t use that water fountain. Why to the back of the bus, are you kidding me.’ It wasn’t my mistake! Oh come on, I’m hungry!

I immediately identified where the food was coming from and played bird dog and headed in that direction. I was met by one of the wait staff at the door. I told her what I perceived, what I expected to happen. I don’t remember what she looked like. I only remember her showing all thirty twos when I told her what was going on.

“Can I get a plate to eat before I get kicked out?”

“Sure baby, absolutely.”

When my food was brought, it appeared the entire kitchen staff came out – all people of color. They were the most friendly, happy bunch of Black people I have ever seen. Joy filled the air. Joyous, joyous people of color; I expected a chorus line to form. While I ate I noticed the word of the mistake passing from lip to lip, ear to ear. I noticed Wanda Cash standing and watching – the wait staff – her fellow Rotarians – me. She was happy, a profane giddy happy; happy, happy.

The food was excellent. The okra gumbo competed with my mother’s. I consumed the food as fast as I could – wiping and eating, wiping and eating – as efficiently as a starving man could only achieve. The same fast when you realize the dad doesn’t like you. The same fast when you realize you don’t like him. I knew I had to leave as soon as possible.

“Thank you. The food was good.”

“I’m glad you enjoyed the food.”

“Did you cook the okra gumbo?”

“I did.”

“Check your foot, one may be missing.”

“Oh baby please, you made all our day. If you want to take some with you, I will make you a container.”

Their day became more joyous as I approached my hosts, still conversing in the southwest corner of this temple of my anticipated expulsion.

“Sorry, excuse me. I figured out how we can address the mistake. You can tell your members, I got sick from the food. I will gracefully excuse myself and make my court appearance on time.”

I expected my host to accept my proposal, he did not. The frown gracing his forehead, which first appeared when I told him of my discovery, seemed to have become permanent scarring. “No we want you to stay.” I was shock by his stance, shocked enough to accept and begin thinking about what I could possibly say at a luncheon I shouldn’t have ever appeared.

The wait staff pretended not be listening, not to be watching. I pretended not to be noticing those colored people now lining the walls. Wanda Garner Cash wasn’t having any of our cultural “not be(s)”, she smiled, bounce in her chair in a perceptible manner. She enjoyed these events more than anyone should publicly enjoy themselves. Her public display of joy in all probability could meet the definition of obscenity.

I told the shocked faces I knew of the mistake. I identified myself. They didn’t clap. The … Oh Shit … moment still lingered in the air. The wait staff was having none of our socially acceptable behavior – clapping, smiling, watching – standing in a row, glued in place, collective humanity holding up the wall.

I explained, “My belief in the Constitution was borne in Goose Creek’s public schools, funded by their tax dollars. “You have no one to blame but yourselves.” Visions of years past came back, flooding and clouding my thoughts. Some in the audience flashed oblique smiles. The wait staff didn’t care, extending a laugh of appreciation, as if Richard Pryor had healed and was on stage again.

I tried to explain the importance of free speech, why the parents’ complaint was upheld by the Court. “Thank you for the food. Thank you for the invitation.” They remained in their seats – astonished – well, except Wanda and the wait staff; standing, clapping, enjoying life’s contradictions a little too much.

After speaking, I hurriedly made my way through the sea of blues and grays. I was stopped by Wanda before I could escape. “Anthony wasn’t this just a great meeting”, all spoken while her body continued to tremble with glee, a giddy glee. Wanda’s only attempt to control her condition came in the form of wiping her eyes. We wished each other well as I made by dash for the door to escape “Wanda, I’m so glad you had such a good time.”

[Author’s note: The above muse was initially published on November 1, 2014 on Blog.com – thus a throw-back musing. The musing is the Web-Manager’s favorite musing, and remains so. It is hoped you enjoyed this version, with slight modifications from the original.]

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

The well-known term, writer’s block, needs little explanation; the inability to think about what to write, or how to proceed with writing. Merriam-Webster defines the condition as “a psychological inhibition preventing a writer from proceeding with a piece.” Others have mused and written on the condition, telling of their frustrations, seeking others’ counsel, admitting inadequacies, shooting blanks (spoken in a literary sense). I muse to say the purported writer’s block is a writer’s admission of being human, without conceding they are no different than anyone else.

Tossing, turning, awakening, attempting to comprehend, words, images, failing woefully; watching text float, disappearing into the unknown, seemingly propelling me into the same unknown space. Describing such a condition as writer’s block is too kind, almost dismissive. A more telling description – The sprinkling of invisible dust – by someone, something – in the cranial cavity, while placing locks on all windows to the world, rendering one a proverbial idiot. No dictionary definition, my definition. How about this as an alternative definition? – Gathering collective thoughts, ideas, images (collected over time, stored for prosperity sake, and later use) in a dust-pan, then a wheel-barrow, moving to the edge, dumping all contents into the abyss, rendering the subject, plain, simple, stupid. With that, my admission – such has been my wont.

The human brain weighs 3.3 pounds (1.5 kilograms) – approximately – making up around 2 percent of our body weight. The brain operates as the command center for the human nervous system, “receiving input from the sensory organs”, sending “output to the muscles.” This rudimentary explanation of brain function is to make clear the later part worked, sending output to muscles, compelling functions; the former did not. World and local events have meant nothing. Seeing, reading about matters which normally serve as an insult to my understanding of history of the world, politics, religion have had no effect; frozen, seized in time and place, caring little of events, war, famine, crime, deceit – so be it.

The bane of the medical profession is not single-payer health insurance. The health care industry represents 17.8 percent of the American economy. Even in my current condition (feeling as if I have been handed a dumb-down membership card from the Zombie Apocalypse Club), I have figured out the profession/industry’s greatest threat – internet research. Giving us too little information, and even that information over our heads because our lack of knowledge base, assuming we can become competent by reading an incomplete explanation of terms, concepts and conditions someone has spent years studying, causing us to become dangers to ourselves. I muse to say, I am no different. In searching for answers, I read, “Memory loss that disrupts daily life may be a symptom of Alzheimer’s or another dementia. Alzheimer’s is a brain disease that causes a slow in memory, thinking and reasoning skills. There are 10 warning signs and symptoms. Every individual may experience one or more of these signs in different degrees.” Moving back, away from the computer, grasping the chair, holding my breath, thinking, not thinking, counting signs, diagnosing, self-diagnosing, dismissing the notion of a temporary condition, jumping logical chains, assessing my condition. My, my, my, I knew I should have eaten more spinach!

Years ago, I was requested to take on a death penalty case in which the condemned man’s lawyer had just died. The State of Texas in its good wisdom thought it wouldn’t look good to execute a man just after his lawyer died. In this void I received a call from a local district judge (I. A. Lerner). Judge Lerner informed me that an execution date was pending (“you can probably get the date moved”, as if this information was comforting), that the Court of Criminal Appeals had just recently affirmed the sentence of death (something I had read about in the newspaper), and that the condemned man needed a new lawyer (I remember His Honor inserting the word, “immediately”). My mental synapses were sharp enough to know there was no mystery as to whom he (the good judge) thought the new lawyer should was going to be. Before terminating the conversation, “His Honor” informed me the county had no money to pay for my anticipated good favor. Tendering the man’s name, providing a case number and his location in the prison system, thanking me, terminating the conversation; I thanked him (for what I don’t know) (maybe this was the first sign of early Alzheimer’s).

Working under an impossible timeline, rifling through thousands of pages, grading another lawyer’s trial and appeal work, looking for any error which would stop the execution – was my task. Day and night, day and night, day and night – three weeks with little or no sleep; travelling from court to court, preparing hundreds of pages of briefing, counting the time – the days, hours – before the execution. Ignoring all signs of trouble, speech, balance, the loss of fine motor skills; incessantly talking, taking a seat on the floor, recounting what had to be done next, never seeing the Gods reach and turn off the lights, falling fast asleep in mid-sentence, never completing the thought, being stripped of every sign of life, save a deep sleep – out cold. Told later, not remembering any of events leading to the mind shutting all impulses, shutting down, refusing to further participate in the body’s demise.

So maybe my current condition is a temporary one, which has lingered for two/three weeks; maybe it is not. Life has a funny way of letting us know – when the internal insult returns, becoming too much; words, images, events causing one to protest internally, then verbally, or even by the use of the written word; telling the good story, the colorful tale, or to participating in resisting when the synapses can take no more. We’ll see.

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

The persistent debate is whether life mirrors art or whether art mirrors life. I will confess early, I stand with the camp with believes the reason fiction is referred to fiction is because it is made up, somewhat anchored in life, real and imagined facts oft-times blended to tell the tale. Taking real life events, changing names, dates, sequence, then pretending the events do not represent real people; while friends snicker, knowing full-well where the line between truth and fiction divide. Art most times remains grounded in real life, providing a starting point, deviating at the split in the road.

I have this friend who traditionally interrupts any story with the statement, “umm, and nobody died in your story.” Her point is rather simple, someone has to die, pay the price for each insult, offense, every challenge to the protagonist’s dignity. Much like a Hollywood driven plot, keeping the audience anchored in their seats, forgetting to remember (needing to pee), knowing the plot line, waiting to see, who is going to die. Fifteen seconds in the movie, illicit activity in an darkened room, somebody making love, then the woman dies – flash, flash – followed by disjointed, disconcerted events, someone walking across the street (death of the only black guy in the movie) – two minutes in no less, musical score playing – blacks, greys, blues, a panoramic scan – Avenue des Champs-Élysées, Lake Shore Drive, Fifth Avenue, the cobbled streets of Istanbul, Avenida de Maceo – scan right, scan left – a view of the sky, setting the tone and tenor, an explosion, additional deaths. Five deaths in the first ten minutes of the movie, tracking the first two chapters in the book, remembering now – you need to pee – refusing to move, remaining anchored in place, the light from the screen casting harrowing images over the audiences, settled, calm, satisfied with death, telling a predictable tale, halos magically lowered over everyone, now believers; art is life, not the contrary.

“And nobody died in your story?”

“No, no one died.”

“Then your story has a fatal flaw, somebody has to die for their transgression.”

A comma, followed by a gruesome death; semi-colon, two death; a dash preceding a calamity; more deaths than births, deaths preceding celebrations, deaths accompanied by dynamic descriptive words, flipping pages; the only ambiguity in the story is how many deaths, counting again, wondering why the characters never take a pause in life, seemingly avoiding depression, particularly when annihilation abounds, Armageddon is the path. Step by step, another death; inch by inch, death – turning, turning, turning – seeing death with each turn, each blink of the eye.

Politicians running into trouble with approval ratings, criticizing enemies, perceived or otherwise, leading to the predictable, wagging their proverbial tails (or is the right word, tales), watching their ratings improve, flexing the nation’s muscle, proclaiming leadership – much like the movies – followed by sanitized deaths. Absolutely, I admit my friend’s version of life is correct – in this context – somebody does die; invisible, sanitized death, somebody dies. Flipping channels, seeing the same story, flipping again, and again, seeing predictability unfold, accompanied by music, commercials, telling and retelling the story.

“Somebody gotta die!”

“Somebody …?”

“Somebody gotta to die …!”

Death is inevitable. This doesn’t mean good story telling must always include multiple deaths, retribution for the offender, living by the Old Testament (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth), in living color, with a dynamic score playing against the backdrop of blacks, whites, blues, still-waters, a victim lying in the street.

“Every time …?”

“Yes, every time – at least in my version of life, my version of the story.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports the death rate in the United States in 2014 was 823.7 deaths per 100,000 people, with the life expectancy being 78.8 years. The number of deaths in 2014 was 2,626,418. The CDC reports the birth rate was 12.5 per 1,000, with 3,988,076 births (in 2014). The data seems to indicate my friend’s analysis is flawed. There remains still more births than death – in most societies – not the contrary. No the statistical data does not mean every transgression is followed by a birth, breakup to makeup, with The Stylistics singing the score, followed by another car chase, music – reds, whites, blues flashing across the screen – followed by birth, another, another. The statistical data suggest that every good story need not entail 5.3 deaths for every 50 pages of text, a minimum 30 deaths per feature film, untold number of deaths to others when our elected leaders desire to show leadership, bravery, to support the good tale.

The evening light settled on the window sill, refusing to intrude farther than two inches from the edge of the ledge, hindered by time, the rotational pull of the earth, the Gods. The tables in the restaurant no longer seemed sequestered, each now occupied. Kissing, hugging, staring stories, reflecting emotions, sharing their day, interacting with the hostess, the wait staff which moved through and among, those same worker bees moved much like the sugar ants moving across the door’s transom, down the side of the building to the sidewalk. The sun retracted further, out of the building, tracking time, reminding all she was no longer a participant, promising to reappear, settling on the sidewalk, winking, yawning; the proper tenor and tone, a well written play, directed and produced by Hollywood.

The stranger’s eyes pointed in one direction, watching, listening not listening, to her companion. Her ears moved to the next table, listening, following the story-line, directing her attention away from the Eggplant Parmesan placed on their table – yellow, red, purple, white, contrasting against fresh basil – listening, listening, listening – a participant from afar. No deaths took place. Everyone made it through dinner without the hallowing sounds of anguish, allowing the stranger to hear clearly, to participate. Captivated, remaining part of the story, finishing her meal, situated in one world, a participant in another, finally fully intruding.

“Which soap opera are you talking about?”

She believed the story had to be fiction, intricate facts, stranger than fiction, interlaced with intertwined relationships – tears, anger, infidelity, love – reflecting colors, light, life. Her reaction told me she believed, pulling away much like the sun, returning fully to her companion, her table when my friend bellowed a hearty laugh, replying, “No, no dear, no soap opera, I am talking about my friends!”

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

I am kind of whacked about House Bill 4260, the Man’s Right to Know Act, which is pending for consideration in the Texas legislature. The proposed bill proposes to fine men $100.00 for each time they masturbate, more specifically, for each and every “masturbatory emissions.” Emissions means, “emissions outside of a woman’s vagina, or created outside of a health or medical facility” – then the $100 civil penalty kicks in – for each emission. The offending conduct is considered an act against an unborn child, failing to preserve the sanctity of life. A masturbatory emission is defined as an emission which takes place outside a woman’s vagina or a hospital. The bill’s sponsor, State Representative Jessica Farrar, explained later the bill was intended to be satirical, to make a point surrounding legislators’ persistent attempt to regulate a woman’s body, somewhat akin to “take that”. For some reason, I’m not laughing, can’t laugh … will not laugh. I don’t believe her. This is a call to action, resist! Whack! Whack!

My form of resistance is to write an open letter to the State Representative, asking her to withdraw the bill, amend, clarify; joke or no joke.

“Dear State Representative Farrar:

I write this letter because of my concerns with regards to H.R. 4260. Don’t’ you see the unintended consequences of your bill? Don’t you? First, there are too many holes in the bill for comfort. The bill requires the State to level a fine for “each masturbatory emission.” It seems to me the bill fails to protect the non-emitter. Electing to whack, hold, grab, pull, prevent emission, building in a presumption of emission, by the act itself. This is unfair.

My other problem: do you want to make liars out of some of us? Much like those who lied to us years earlier, predicting our demise, the loss of sight, blindness.

“I didn’t emit. I didn’t emit.”

I recognize the Snapchat generation couldn’t care less; filming, snapping, telling on themselves, showing all, posting each and every emission, believing the snap disappears, into the ethos, never to be seen again. Excuse me for a moment … whack, whack, whack. The Act will drive some of us to the recesses of society, to counselors (for our guilt), hiding in corners, confessing our sins, confused with the loss of control over our bodies.

What about multiple emissions performed in the same event? Ma’am, there are some talented whackers out there. You thought about that, have you? Are you trying to make criminals out of men? Do you hate us? Are you lesbian? What’s the issue? I know during the elections one of the candidates admitted, “Someone has to be punished.” He wasn’t talking about men. I know. I know. I know, it takes two to tango, but come on – it seems to me you are criminalizing victim-less conduct.

What about the trial? The proposed bill says the fine is civil. I doubt this. What happens when the victim disagrees with the proposed civil fine? Are they subjected to confinement when refusing to pay? Do you admit the bill will ultimately impose a presumption of emission, to avoid creating proof problems for the prosecution? A presumption imposed on proof of the act, an assumption there was an emission, to avoid the messiness a fully prepared case would entail, requiring measurement, quantifying the amount of the emission.

Ma’am your fatal attempt at satire fails woefully. I’m insulted. Nothing in the bill grabs and holds my gay brothers. Exempting them from liability, seemingly exempting them from the Act, whacking away and allowing them to defend on constitutional grounds, claiming the law is not applicable to them; while channeling the rest of us to hospitals seeking to fall under the exception to the law. What if we are situated in a part of the state where there is no health facility or hospital?

If you pretend this is about regulating health and safety, you still fail. Your bill is unconstitutionally vague, and requires reworking. It has no language requiring ones admission in the hospital. You are creating a dangerous environment for me and others, requiring us to invade the space of the smokers, standing outside, in the corners, to the side of the doorway, abiding by the smoking law, now encumbered and partnered which others who have decided to go to the hospital to whack away. I am not imagining. Nothing in Bill 4260 requires admission to a hospital. Whack, whack.

One final point, who receives the civil penalty? Is this like the lotto promise, that the lotto dollars would go to the schools to educate Texas children? Look where that promised got us. Seems to me you are imposing a sin tax. Maybe even viewpoint discrimination, striking at the core of the right of self-expression. Using taxpayers’ monies to legislate your views, when life begins, is that your aim? Come on, don’t go there.

Whack, whack, whack!

Please withdraw your bill. We get your point and you’re not funny!”

_____________

Postscript: Don’t believe a word I said. The letter is a satirical treatment of the Representative’s bill, attempting to aid in her point; a societal insistence on packaging a women’s body; commoditizing that which is not a commodity – something we (not the Southern “we”, instead the collective “men” we) simply don’t own. Written in the tradition of Mark Twain, The Onion, Charlie Hebdo, Chris Rock, hoping, just hoping, … the challenge is appreciated, even if done circuitously, while my tongue remains firmly implanted, in cheek.

So I muse.

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

Life is somewhat akin to the use by dates on the side of food products. An estimation, predicting, “best when used by.” Smelling, poking, lifting, checking color is no different than parenting. Kicking ourselves for forgetting, tucked behind something else, wondering whether, “still good” – our treatment of friends, love ones, family. In college, I took a course entitled Chemistry for Non-science Majors, an experiment by the Science Department, in hope of stripping the mysteries and fears of science away. “Making science friendly again – to make America great again” – no I’m making that part up, digressing early, my apology.

May I continue? – One of the areas covered dealt with food sciences. The preservation of food, learning about the chemical compounds printed on the side of foods in the marketplace, discovering how plants are genetically modified, understanding how substances change when one molecule is removed, another added. No different than life.

Years ago, a friend of mine by her fortieth birthday began to read the obituaries in the Houston Chronicle daily. I didn’t understand what she was doing. A big city paper, surely Donna didn’t expect to see someone she knew in the paper everyday. I didn’t understand Donna was lamenting aging, seeing time pass, her use by date approaching fast, wondering whether the “best by this date” was approaching, or even passed. Lamenting, lamenting, lamenting, reading, expressing anger, frustration, pointing at someone she didn’t even know.

I understand now. Smelling, poking, pushing … looking for signs of imminent death – like I am going to see some magical clue from the image looking back at me in the mirror. Expressing condolences, barely able to contain myself, wanting to ask, having to ask, “What did he die of?”, “Oh, I’m so sorry”, “How old did you say he was?” – “My, my, my” wrapped, packaged around my concerns, Donna’s concerns, for the “best used by date.” Reading the obituary closely, seeing what they didn’t say. Much like high fructose corn syrup, sodium erythorbate, erythorbic acid, seeing the words imprinted on the packaging, having no concept what I’m looking at, looking for.

“Died how young?”

“Did they say why?”

“Cancer, diabetes, didn’t eat right, didn’t exercise?”

“Oh, died in a car accident. Good! Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean it that way.”

Seeing the meat in the refrigerator, immediately realizing it was purchased a week ago, knowing you forgot, wondering whether it is past it’s “use by date.” Reaching to throw it out, remembering your mother’s instruction to drain the meat, wash off the blood, then smell. Salting, seasoning, smelling, using in a meal, eating.

Smelling the milk, retching, embarrassed at the waste, seeing starving children in River Oaks, before adapting, stirring, folding, mixing with other sour milk for bread. Remembering the lessons, their history: never throwing anything away, born during the depression, on farms, surviving, reusing, adapting, saving, feeding their families on little, proud of their resourcefulness. Developing idioms to explain life problems, life events, reminding their heirs, not to throw away objects – things – people: “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.” “Making chicken salad out of chicken gaga’” (even though the wrong word used, I think you get the point).

The medical profession raves against the over-consumption of anything – salt, sugar – while failing to point us to the operative word(s), over-consumption. Not ever willing to deny that salt is a necessary nutrient, in turn posting warnings, placing salt on the Most Wanted Criminal List, a criminal, dangerous. That same profession sits back in shock at our willingness to by-pass substitutes for the real thing, an organic substance.

So label me confused, wondering what the fuss is about surrounding food labeling – much like life. Finding myself doing much more important tasks, reading the obituaries daily, attending more funerals than weddings, expressing my condolences to get close enough to ask additional questions, looking in the mirror, poking, prodding, smelling, seeing the use by date approaching fast.